HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubsoil StudyI Crt iiffil;ïåii[diJF,,l,r ;... *
An Employcc Owncd Gompony
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
phone: (970)945-7988
fax: (970) 945-8454
email : kaglenwood@kumarusa.com
wwwkumarusa.com
Office Locations: Denver (HQ), Parker, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Glenwood Springs, and Summit County, Colorado
RËCEIVED
lili ? ? ,lii?;)
GARFIELD COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
LOT 283, TRONBRTDGE
BLUE HERON VISTA
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
PROJECT NO.21-7-218
APRIL 13,2021
PREPARED FOR:
SCIB, LLC
ATTN: LUKE GOSDA
0115 BOOMERANG ROAD, SUrTE 52018
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ....
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
I
1
1
SITE CONDITIONS
...- 2 -
a
-2-
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL...
FIELD EXPLORATION.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ....- 3 -
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS ....-3 -
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ..4-
FOI.INDATIONS ,..,..,.- 4 -
FOLINDATION AND RETAINING WALLS .................. 5 .
NONSTRUCTURAL FLOOR SLABS ..........- 6 -
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM............. ................- 6 -
SITE GRADING....... ..- 7 -
SURFACE DRAINAGE
LIMITATIONS.-8-
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING
FIGURE 2 - LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
FIGURE 3 - SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 4 _ GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
............- 7 -
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No.21-7-218
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on
Lot2S3,Ironbridge, Blue Heron Vista, Garfield County, Colorado. The project site is shown on
Figure l. The pu{pose of the study was to develop recommendations for the foundation design.
The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering
services to SCIB, LLC dated February 18,202I.
An exploratory boring was drilled to obtain information on the subsurface conditions. Samples
of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine
their classification, expansion-compression potential and other engineering characteristics. The
results of the f,reld exploration and laboratory testing were analyzedto develop recommendations
for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation. This
report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design
recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed
construction and the subsurface conditions encountered.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The proposed residence is located in the existing Ironbridge development. Hepworth-Pawlak
Geotechnical, Inc. (now Kumar & Associates) previously conducted subsurface exploration and
geotechnical evaluation for the development of Villas North and Villas South parcels, Job No.
105 115-6, report dated September 14,2005, and performed observation and testing services
during the infrastructure construction, Job No. 106 0367, between April 2006 and April 2007.
The information provided in these previous reports has been considered in the current study of
Lot283.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
At the time of our study, design plans for the residence had not been developed. The residence
will likely be a one or two-story, wood-frame structure with structural slab foundation and no
basement or crawlspace. Grading for the structure is assumed to be relatively minor with cut and
fill depths up to about 3 to 4 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the
proposed type of construction.
If building loadings, location or grading plans change signif,rcantly from those described above,
we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report.
Kumar & Associates, lnc, @ Project No.21-7-218
,'
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject site was vacant at the time of our field exploration. The lot is located in the north
part of thc Villas North Paroel. The natural temain prior to development in 2006 sloped down to
the east at about 5%o grade. The subdivision area was elevated by filling on the order of 12 feet
above the original ground surface to create a relatively flat and gently sloping building site off
Blue Heron Vista. An MSE retaining wall up to around 9 feet high supports the north perimeter
of the fill section as shown on Figure l. Vegetation consists of grass and weeds with scattered
sage brush.
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL
Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies the project area which is known to be associated with sinkholes
andlocalized ground subsidence in the Roaring Fork Valley. A sinkhole opened in the cart
storage parking lot located east of the Pro Shop and west of the Villas North parcel in January
2005. Irregular surface features were not observed in the Villas North parcel that could indicate
an unusual risk of future ground subsidence. Variable depths of the debris fan soils were locally
encountered by the previous September 14,2005 geotechnical study which indicates there could
have been localized subsidence of the river gravel deposits. The current subsurface exploration
performed in the area of the proposed residence on Lot 283 did not encounter voids. In our
opinion, the risk of future ground subsidence on Lot 283 throughout the service life of the
proposed residence is low and similar to other areas of the Roaring Fork Valley where there have
not been indications of ground subsidence.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on March 22,202I. One exploratory boring
was drilled at the location shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The boring
was advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck-mounted CME-
458 drill rig. The boring was logged by a representative of Kumar & Associates, Inc.
Samples of the suhsoils were taken with l% inch ancl 2-inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers
were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30
inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586.
Thc pcnctration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the
subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are
shown on the Log of Exploratory Boring, Figure 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory
fbr review by the project engineer and tcsting.
Kumar & Associates, Inc. @ Project No. 21.7.218
a-J-
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
A graphic log of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site is shown on Figure 2. The
subsoils encountered, consist of compacted fill soils to 12 feet deep overlying stiff, sandy clay
and silt soils (alluvial fan deposits) underlain by dense, silty sandy gravel with cobbles at a depth
of about 20 leet to the maximum drilled depth of 24 feet. The fill materials were mainly placed
in2006 and consist of relatively dense, mixed silt, sand and gravel. Drilling in the coarse
granular subsoils was difficult due to the cobbles and practical auger drilling was encountered in
the deposit.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the boring included natural moisture
content and density and gradation analyses. Results of swell-consolidation testing performed on
a relatively undisturbed sample of the silt and clay soil, shown on Figure 3, indicate low to
moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting. Results of gradation analyses
performed on a small diameter drive sample (minus lYz-inch fraction) of the granular fill soils
are shown on Figure 4. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1.
No free water was encountered in the boring at the time of drilling and the subsoils were slightly
moist.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The upper 12 feet of soils encountered in the boring consist of fill placed mainly in 2006 as part
of the subdivision development. The field penetration tests and laboratory tests performed for
the study, and review of the field density tests performed during the fill construction indicate the
structural fill was placed and compacted to the project specified minimum 95% of standard
Proctor density. Alluvial fan soils which tend to collapse (settle under constant load) when
wetted were encountered below the fill. The amount of settlement will depend on the thickness
of the compressible soils due to potential collapse when wetted, and the future compression of
the wetted soils following construction. Relatively deep structural fill as encountered will also
have some potential for long-term settlement but should be significantly less than the alluvial fan
deposits. Proper grading, drainage and compaction as presented in the Surface Drainage section
will help to keep the subsoils dry and reduce the settlement risks. A heavily reinforced structural
slab or post-tensioned slab foundation designed for significant differential settlements is
recommended for the building support. As an alternative, a deep foundation that extends down
into the underlying dense, river gravel could be used to reduce the building settlement risk.
Kumar & Associates, lnc. o Project No.21-7-218
-4-
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurfäce conditions encountered in l"he exploratory boring and the nature of
the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with a heavily reinforced
structural slah or post-tensioned slah for¡ndation hearing on ahorrt 12 feet. of the existing
compacted structural f,rll. The structural engineer should consider the close proximity of the
MSE wall to the north side of the residence in the foundation design to not adversely impact wall
stability and for potential differential settlement. If a deep foundation system is considered for
building support, we should be contacted for additional recommendations.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a heavily reinforced
structural slab or post-tensioned slab foundation system.
1) A heavily reinforced structural slab or post-tensioned slab
structural fill should be designed for an allowable bearing
The post-tensioned slab placed on structural fill should be
placed on
1,500 psf.
distance of 1 0 fcct or at lcast half of thc slab width, whichcver is grcater.
Settlement of foundation is estimated to be about I to I% inches based on the
long-term compressibility of the fill. Additional settlement of about 1 to
1% inches is estimatecl if the underlying debris fan soils were to become wet.
Settlement from the deep wetting would tend to be uniform across the building
area and the settlement potential of the fill section should control the design.
2) The thickened sections of the slab for support of concentrated loads should have a
minimum width of 20 inches.
3) The perimeter turn-down section of the slab should be provided with adequate soil
cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement of foundations
at least 36 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this area. If a frost-
protected foundation is used, the perimeter turn-down section should have at least
18 inches ofsoil cover.
4) The foundation should be constructed in a "box-like" configuration rather than
with irrcgular cxtcnsions which can scttlc difi'crcntially to thc main building arca.
The foundation walls, where provided, should be heavily reinforced top and
bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of af
least 14 fbet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures, if any, should also
be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and
Retaining Walls" section of this report.
a
Kumar & Associates, lnc. o Project No.21-7-218
-5-
5)The root zone and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed. Additional
structural fill placed below the slab should be compacted to at least 98o/o of the
maximum standard Proctor density within 2 percentage points of the optimum
moisture content.
A representative of the geotechnical engineer should evaluate the compaction of
the fill materials and observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement
to evaluate bearing conditions.
6)
FOI.]NDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Foundation walls and retaining structures (if any) which are laterally supported and can be
expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth
pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 50 pcf for backfill
consisting of the on-site soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the
residence and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilizethe full active earth pressure
condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent
fluid unit weight of at least 40 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site soils.
All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and
surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traff,tc, construction materials and equipment. The
pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal
backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will
increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain
should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls.
Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90Yo of the maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill placed in pavement and
walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95Yo of the maximum standard Proctor density.
Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment near the wall, since
this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall
backfill should be expected, even if the material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to
facilities constructed on the backfill.
The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the
sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against
the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated
based on a coefficient of friction of 0.35. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No.2l.7-2'18
-6-
sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 325 pcf. The
coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommendecl above assume ultimate soil
strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will
occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placecl against
tlre sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be compacted to at least 95Yo of the
maximnm stanclarcl Proctor clensity at a moisture content near optimum.
NONSTRUCTURAL FLOOR SLABS
Compacted structural fill can be used to support lightly loaded slab-on-grade construction
separate from the building foundation. The fill soils can be compressible when wetted and can
result in some post-construction settlement. To reduce the effects of some differential
movement, nonstructural floor slabs should be separated from buildings to allow unrestrained
vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage
cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the
designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of relatively
well-graded sand and gravel, such as road base, should be placed beneath slabs as subgrade
support. This material shoulcl consist of minus 2-inch aggregate with at least -50% retained on
the No. 4 sieve and less than l2o/o passing the No. 200 sieve.
All f,rll materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95o/o of maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on-
site granular soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
It is our understanding the finished floor elevation at the lowest level is at or above the
surrounding grade. Therefore, a foundation drain system is notrequired. It has been our
experience in the areathat local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy
precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched
condition. 'We recommend below-grade construction, such as retaining walls, be protected from
wctting and hydrostatic prcssurc buildup by an undcrdrain and wall drain systcm.
If the finished floor elevation of the proposed structure has a floor level below the surrounding
grade, we should be contacted to provide reçommendations for an underdrain system. All earth
retaining structures should be properly drained.
Kumar & Associates, lnc. o Project No.21-7-2'18
-1
SITE GRADING
Extensive grading was performed as part of the existing Villas North development. Additional
placement and compaction of structural fill soils could be needed to elevate the site to design
grades and reduce the risk of excessive differential settlements and building distress. In addition,
the water and sewer pipe joints should be mechanically restrained to reduce the risk ofjoint
separation in the event of excessive differential settlement. Additional structural fill placed
below foundation bearing level should be compacted to at least 98o/o of the maximum standard
Proctor density within 2%o of optimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement, the subgrade
should be carefully prepared by removing any vegetation and organic soils and compacting to at
least95o/o of the maximum standard Proctor density af near optimum moisture content. The fill
should be benched into slopes that exceed 20Yo grade.
Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at2hoizontal to 1 vertical or flatter
and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. This office should review site
grading plans for the project prior to construction.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
Precautions to prevent wetting of the bearing soils, such as proper backfill construction, positive
backfill slopes, restricting landscape irrigation and use of roof gutters, need to be taken to help
limit settlement and building distress. The following drainage precautions should be observed
during construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed:
1) Inundation of the building structural slab foundation excavations should be
avoided during construction.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to
at least 95Yo of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and
nonstructural slab areas and to at least 90o/o of the maximum standard Proctor
density in landscape areas.
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to
drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum
slope of 6 inches in the first 5 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of
3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. Graded swales should have a
minimum slope of 3%.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge at least 5 feet beyond the
foundation and preferably into a subsurface solid drainpipe.
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No.2'l-7-218
-8-
Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at least
l0 feet from fbundation walls. Consideration should be given to use of xeriscape
to reduce the potential for wetting of soils below the building caused by irrigation.
LIMITATIONS
'l'his study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering
principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no waranty either express or implied.
The conclusions and recoÍrmendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the exploratory boring drilled at the location indicated on Figure l, the proposed type of
construction and our experience in the area. Our services do not include determining the
presence, prevention or possibility of mold or other biological contaminants (MOBC) developing
in the future. If the client is concerned about MOBC, then a professional in this special field of
practice should be consulted. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the
subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory boring and variations in the subsurface
conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered
during construction appear different from those described in this reporto we should be notified so
that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. 'We are not
responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we
should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and
monitor the implementation of our recoÍtmendations, and to veri$r that the recommendations
have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis
or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation
of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of
the geotechnical engineer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kumar &
Steven L. Paw
Reviewed by:
E P.E
SLPlkac
s)
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @
i
Project No.21'7-218
EXISTING SINGLE
TIER MSE WALL
COMMON
o
LOT 284
t-
LAI 282
1
- 5958
.'5960----.
LOT 283
5957
5959
a
"$
o
BORING f
APPOX¡MATE SCALE-FEET
21 -7 -218 Kumar & Associates LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING Fig.1
21 /12
WC=9.7
DD= 1 06
- 200=5 1
BORING 1
EL.=5960'LEGEND
FILL; MIXED SANDY SILT AND SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, VERY
sTtFF/MtDtUM DENSE, SLTGHTLY lt,lo|SÏ, M|XED BRoWN.
31 /12
41/12
WC=8.9
DD= 1 25
-200=7 1
SILT AND CLAY (ML-CL); SANDY, STIFF, SLIGHTLY MO|ST,
RED-BROWN.
5
(cu);
BROWN,
GRAVEL
MOIST,
SILTY, SANDY, COBBLES, DENSE, SLIGHTLY
ROUND ROCK,
!
I
DRIVE SAMPLE, 2-INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE.
10 33/6, 50/3
WC=5.9
DD=122
+4=30
-200=36
l-
t¡JtdtL
I-t-fL
t¡Jo
DRIVE SAMPLE, 1 3/8-|NCH t.D. SPLTT SP00N STANDARD
PENITRATION TTST.
15 12/12
WC=8.4
DD='l 1 0
11 711DR|VE SAMPLE BLOW C0UNT. INDICATES THAT 31 BL0WS 0F"'t '' A 14o-pouND HAMMER FALLTNG J0 tNcHEs wERE REQUTRED
TO DRIVE THE SAMPTER 12 INCHES.
f enacrrcAL AUcER REFUSAL.
20
55/12
NOTES
1. THE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS DRILLED ON MARCH 22, 2021
WITH A 4-INCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS FLIGHT POWER AUGER.
2 THE LOCATION OF THE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS MIASURED
APPROXIMATTLY BY PACING FROM FEATURIS SHOWN ON THE SITE
PLAN PROVIDED.
25
3 THE ELEVATION OF ÏHE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS OBTAINED BY
INTERPOLATION BETWEEN CONTOURS ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED.
4. ÏHE EXPTORATORY BORING LOCATION AND ELEVATION SHOULD BE
CONSIDERID ACCURATE ONLY IO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE
METHOD USED.
5. THE LINES BETWEEN MATERIALS SHOWN ON THE EXPLORATORY
BORING LOG REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN
MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS MAY BE GRADUAL.
6. GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORING AT THE
TIME OF DRILLING.
7, LABORATORY TEST RESULTS:
WC = WATER CONTENT (%) (ASTM D 2216);
DD = DRY DENSITY (PCt) (ISTV D 2216);
+4 = PERCENTAGE RETAINED 0N N0.4 SIEVE (ASTM D 6913);
-200 = PERCENTAGE PASSING N0. 200 SIEVE (ASTM D 1140).
21 -7 -218 Kumar & Associates LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Fis. 2
SAMPLE 0F: Scndy Silt ond Cloy
FROM: Boring 1 @ 15'
WC = 8.4 %, DD = 110 pcf
l
Ì
'.-_l
l
ti
l
i
I
l
I
l
;
ii
i
I
I
I
aomplca
Bholl not
Th.tætcd.
bc rcproduGd,
Th.rc t.!l raults
full, w¡thout lh. writtrn opprcvol of
Kumor ond Aaloc¡otc!, lnc. Swall
Comol¡dotion lc3tlng prrfom.d ¡n
occordoncc w¡th ASIU D-4546.
l
I
I
l
I
l
l
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE UPON WETTING
I
I
.1...
t
rl
l
L
ril il
I
lti
,l
.ll
I
ll
:i
Iil
l
ili lr
l
l
li
i
l
1
I
i
I
l
l
l
)
l
I
ri
I
li
l
lr
i
I
Il
Ii.
i
I
I
i
,ì.l
l
1
I
I
I
l
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
i
i
1
I
l
1
o\
JJ
l¡J
=tJ1
I
z.oË
ô
=otnzo()
0
-1
2
1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF 10 t00
21 -7 -218 Kumar & Associates SWELL_CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig.3
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS
¿4 HRS 7 HRS
U.S. STANDARÞ SERIES CLEAR SOUARE OPENINCS
\/aâ t/l' 1 1/r'
I
ì
L
I
I
I
I l
2
t
p
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
JO
20
lo
o
t0
20
50
4U
50
50
70
80
90
ã
u
.001 ,002 .oo5 .009 .019 .057 .075 .'t 50 .300 I .600 t.18 I 2.36 1.75,125 2.O
PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERSOIAMETER OF
CLAY TO SILT COBBLES
GRAVEL 30 % SAND 31 %
LIQUID LIMIT - PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE OF: Silty Sond ond Grovel (Fill)
SILT AND CLAY 36 %
FROM:Boring1Ol0'
Th6s6 losl rosulls opply only lo lho
surilplcs wlìlçh w€19 l!9lsd. The
l€sllng rcporl sholl nol b! roproduced,
cxccpl ln lull, wllhoul ihr wrltlrnqpprovol of Kumor & Assoclol€s, lnc.
Sbvc qnqlysl3 t€sllng ls porformod ln
occordqnco wlth ASTM 069,l5, ASTM D7928,
ASTM c136 ondlor AsfM 01140.
SAND GRAVEL
COARSEFINEMEDIUMCOARSEFIN E
21 -7 -218 Kumar & Associates GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4
I(a åiffifi:ffi,Ëffn'""Ê;n'*'*TABLE 1SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTSSOIL TYPESandy Silt with Gravel(Fil)Very Sandy Silt withGravel (Fill)Silty Sand and Gravel (Fill)Sandy Silt and Claylosf)UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSIVESTRENGÏH(%lPLASTICINDEX17ATTERBERG LIMITS('/"1LIQUID LIMITPERCENTPASSING NO.200 stEVE1536(f/,)SAND34GRADATION("/"1GRAVEL30BORINGLOCATIONDEPTHNATURALDRYDENSITYNATURALMOISTURECONTENTt25106t221108.99.15.98.44701511No.21-7-2'18